Increase the mount path to MAXPATHLEN?

[Doug Ambrisko]

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 06:00:37PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
| On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 2:56:39 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote:
| > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:09:54AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
| > > On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:21:16 am Konstantin Belousov wrote:
| > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 01:11:45PM -0700, Doug Ambrisko wrote:
| > > > > I have a patch at:
| > > > > 	http://people.freebsd.org/~ambrisko/statf.patch
| > > > > that people can glance at.  If this approach is the right way to go
| > > > > then I update it for the latest -current and update it.
| > > > 
| > > > No, I do not think this is the right approach.
| > > > You are breaking the ABI in the backward-incompatible way.
| > > >
| > > > What should be done is versioning the fstatfs(2) and other related
| > > > symbols from libc. Please look at the lib/libc/include/compat.h
| > > > and its use for upgrading the syscalls ABI.
| > > 
| > > Not sufficient.  This will not help static binaries or binaries using an
| > > older libc (such as libc.so.6) if that libc used these system call vectors.
| > > I know we rototilled all the stat system calls for 64-bit ino_t recently,
| > > not sure if that also affected statfs.  If it did then you might be off
| > > the hook for libc.so.6, but static binaries still matter as long as we
| > > ship a libc.a.
| > I do not see why. Old static binaries, as well old libc.so.6 and libc.so.7,
| > would use old syscall numbers. New libc.so.7 use new syscall number, but
| > export fstatfs at FBSD_1.0 which is resolved for the old binaries, resulting
| > in old binaries calling old syscall.
| 
| Right.  I thought you were objecting to his adding new system calls and wanted
| to only add wrappers in libc where the compat symbols in libc called the new
| system calls and thunked the data.
|  
| > > However, it is true that in addition to new system calls, you now also need
| > > to add new versions of the relevant functions via symbol versioning in libc
| > > as well.
| 
| I guess you were just saying that Doug needs this additional step, and I concur
| with that entirely.

Yes, since if I did that then there wouldn't be the upgrade hassle.  So that
was a good point that I had forgot about.

Thanks,

Doug A.